The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-12-20

d. The bill states that in September
Of 1886, one Kahalelole (w), died intes'
E tate at Kohala, leaving several
&C pieces of land of the value of be-
! tween three and four thousand dol
lars, and leaving as her sole heirs
at-law her husband, the defendant
u Kealina and the plaintiff Kaohe hel
Z uncle That the plaintiffs are over
! seventy years of age, feeble in body
and mind, ignorant and illiterate,
and were not aware at the time OF
the death of said Kahalelole, that
the plaintiff Kaohe was entitled to a
share of said lands nor of the nature,
4 extent or value of the same. That
j said Kealina, well knowing the con-
r dition, mental and physical of the
! plaintiffs and their Ignorance OF
their rights in the premises, and
the great value and extent of the
/ said estate, and conspiring to de-
fraud the plaintiffs in the premises
through mistake and ignorance on
the part of the plaintiffs and by
fraud duress, wilfull misrepresenta-
ton and fraudulent concealment and
suppression of the facts upon the
part of the defendant Kealina, upon
the 9th of February, 1887, pro-
cured deed from the plaintiffs of
all their right and interest in said
inteState's real estate for the NOM
inal consideration of fifty dollars.
The bill then alleges sale by the
defendant Kealina to the defendant
Kinds with notice, and prays that
said deed to Kealina be declared
void, that Kinds and Kealina be Or
dered to re-convey to plaintiffs, for
an Injunction and general relief.
The defendant Kealina by his
answer denies the fraud charged,
states there are other heirs, that
plaintiffs well understood their
rights, that the consideration of
fifty dollars was actually paid to
plaintiffs, and that they executed
the same freely, voluntarily and
Understandings for the considera-
ton in said deed expressed, and
that the plaintiff Kaohe before the
execution of the deed to defendant,
that he did not care how much the
defendant should pay him, but was
willing to turn over his (Kaohe's)
share in the estate of defendant say
ing " You earned this property, so
you may have it," and that the said
deed was procured on account of the
family connections between plain
tiffs and defendant before and after
the death of said Kahaleole.
At the hearing it appeared that
the conveyances to the defendant
Kinds were executed before the
deed sought to he set aside, namely,
one on the 4th of October, 1886, the
consideration for which was 81, 900,
and the other on the 29th January,
1887, the consideration being 81, 400,
and the bill was therefore dismissed
as against Kinds.
From the testimony it appeared
that the plaintiff Kaohe is entitled
to one-fourth of the estate of the
intestate, and that about two weeks
previous to the execution of the
deed in question, one Geo. P. Ka-
mauoha, licensed practitioner in
the Police and District Courts, and
who had prepared one of the deeds
from Kealina to Kinds, called upon
the plaintiff and as he says Informed
the plaintiff Kaohe of his int rest in
the deceased's estate and that he
was entitled to one-fourth, and men,
toned the several lands and said,
"Fll give you $50 for your interest,
may have trouble in getting pos
session of these lands" that Kaohe
agreed, that deed was Immediately
prepared and Kaohe was taken to
Dr. Nights store to execute and
acknowledge it--that when the
deed was read to him and he was
asked if he was willing to sell for
$50, he answered &c MOI and the
deed was not signed. The deed to
the defendant was afterwards pre-
pared by Kamauoha and was exc
cuted and acknowledged by the
plaintiffs.
l ami compelled to express my
disapprobation of the conduct of
Kamauoha in the matter, which |
think very reprehensible.
The testimony is contradictory as
to the knowledge of the plaintiffs,
of the effect of the deed to the de-
fendant but after considering the
testimony and the various incidental
circumstances, and especially after
seeing the plaintiffs and hearing
their testimony, / am of opinion
that they are entitled to the relief
asked for. The transaction is in my
opinion one that a Court of equity
cannot sustain.
1 therefore declare that the COLI
veyance in the bill mentioned is